MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409329503 · doi:10.3390/land14040816

An Integrated Trivariate-Dimensional Statistical and Hydrodynamic Modeling Method for Compound Flood Hazard Assessment in a Coastal City

2025· article· en· W4409329503 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Wang, Jingxiu Wu, Slobodan P. Simonović, Ziwu Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythEnvironmental scienceHazardHazard analysisHydrology (agriculture)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementGeologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringEcologyReliability engineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme flood occurrences are becoming increasingly common due to global climate change, with coastal cities being more vulnerable to compound flood disasters. In addition to excessive precipitation and upstream river discharge, storm surge can complicate the flood disaster process and increase the hazard of urban flooding. This study proposed an integrated trivariate-dimensional statistical and hydrodynamic modeling approach for assessing the compound flood hazard associated with extreme storm surges, precipitation events, and upstream river discharge. An innovative trivariate copula joint modeling and the frequency amplification method were used to simulate designed values under different return periods (RPs), considering the correlation of the three factors. The results show remarkable differences between the inundated areas of flood events with trivariate drivers and a single driver under the same RPs, indicating that univariate frequency values are insufficient to manage flood threats in compound flood events. The proposed method provides guidelines for comprehending the compound flood process and designing flood control projects in coastal cities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207